Following is a fantastic email from reader TheGoof, in his own words. Incidentally, it's not easy to find this out using the Play Index--some manual searching is involved.

I was wondering how unusual it was that Curtis Granderson was leading the league in both runs and RBI. It's not horribly uncommon, as I found, 22 times in the NL, twice in the AA and 25 in the AL (six by Ruth in a 10-year span!).

However, leading both leagues in R and RBI is really rare, especially if you aren't Babe Ruth.

These are famous, historic seasons. Only Magee and Mize surprised me. And I think Cobb was the only one to also lead his league in triples that season.

And, once again, just how good was that Ruth guy? Leading both leagues in R and RBI six times in 10 years? Unreal. I mean, he had to compete with Hornsby and Gehrig and plenty of other greats. As a lifelong Yankee fan, I thought I had some sense, but it wasn't until I read a book about the 1918 Red Sox ("The Year the Red Sox Won the Series," a collection of press clippings) that I really got it. They thought of him like we think of Pujols before he even took to the outfield. And then he hit homers...

Anyway, keep up the good work.
--TheGoof

Just one things to add--these days, with so many more players in the league, it's even harder to lead all of MLB in both categories. Granderson's gotta be the MVP.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 7:23 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

82 Responses to “Leading both leagues in RBI and R (or “Why Curtis Granderson is the AL MVP”)”

Leaving out the multiple winners, all had a career highs in R or RBI or HR in that year except Aaron. Sosa had a career high in HR in 1998 and career highs in R and RBI in 2001. In 1949, Williams had a career high in all 3. Ruth reset career highs in all 3 in 1919, 1920, 1921. Only his HR total was surpassed after 1921.

Granderson is having an excellent season, but aren't we past using these overly simplified team-influenced metrics to determine the MVP? How can we have two weeks "Ryan Howard is overrated because he only drives in the most runs because he has the most ducks on the pond" and then fall back on this? Granderson is 2nd in total bases and 6th in times on base. He leads in these other two categories because of his durability (should be considered part of his value) and his teammates (should not be considered part of his value). He's behind Adrian Gonzalez (1st in TOB, 2nd in TB) in both of these much more important categories.

Granderson is doing it from a more difficult defensive position (even though Gonzalez is, by most metrics, having the best defensive season this year amongst 1B while Granderson shows up as middle of the road among CF), so you can argue that he's been more valuable to Gonzalez. But he isn't as good of a "hitter" despite what R and RBI say.

Granderson is having an epic year and I think Andy is right that he should win the MVP easily. He's done most of his damage batting 2nd. Wonder how many guys have lead the league in RBI's batting 2nd most of the time?

Some of you are missing the point. Yes. RBI and R are highly contextual and team dependent. We all understand that. But when a player leads all of MLB in both, it's a strong indicator that he's had an enormously productive season. The comparison to Howard is irrelevant because he didn't achieve the feat being discussed. Goof's list serves to show how rare the feat is, and what it indicates. In other words, nobody leads all of MLB in both categories without having incredible production.

Of course it's an indicator that he's had an enormously productive season. Leading the league in EITHER means you're enormously productive.

You didn't argue that he was very productive though, you argued that he was MVP. Which he may or may not be, but we shouldn't use a team-based statistic to prove it. By failing to contextualize statistics correctly, we devalue them. If your post had just been about how Granderson was leading the league in both, and that it's an awesome feat, I'd have no problem with it. Your oversimplified conclusion that it makes him MVP is what I take issue with.

Like I said in the previous post, Sammy Sosa led the majors in both categories. He didn't win the MVP, and he didn't deserve the MVP, because Barry Bonds was better. Sosa got two first place votes, presumably from voters who made the same oversimplified conclusion that you made here. Those voters were wrong. That didn't make Sosa unproductive, overrated, or whatever. It just means he wasn't the *Most* valuable player. Curtis Granderson might end up deserving the MVP, but if he does, it will have little to do with his runs and RBI total.

Thank you Andy! Just because RBI is cool to hate on, doesn't mean that this is irrelevant. It belongs here on this site Santos, because it's still baseball stats and baseball conversation. Without stats and talking about stats, what else do we have???

Wouldn't it be cool to be able to go back in time and see the 1911 Ty Cobb play? Led league in R, RBI, 2B, 3B, SBs, hit .420, spiked numerous opponents. If I could go back to one baseball era it would be the late teens/early twenties, no doubt.

OK, look past the flamboyant post title to the general point of TheGoof's post that a guy who does what Granderson's doing usually deserves the MVP. Nobody is saying that it's an absolute 100% slam dunk (except for the post title which is, admittedly, in very big letters.)

I'm not sure what straw man I created.. It's not like Granderson is having a Barry Bonds 2002 runaway best in the league season. Smart people have argued other people are the MVP this year. It's not a slam dunk.

You posted about Granderson leading the majors in runs and RBI and then added that Granderson's gotta be the MVP. What, exactly, is my straw man?

I like to read comments before reading the name of the poster, and then go back afterwards to read the name of the poster. I find this helps me not to pre-judge comments, and is also sometimes a fun game to see if I can recognize the author by his or her writing.

It's always interesting when one of those comments ends up being from Timmy P.

Bautista is the most valuable player in the league, but he won't win MVP. The narrative has been about all of the other guys this year, for whatever reason. I think sportswriters are terrified that Bautista is juicing or something, and are worried about getting fooled again by glorifying him. Which is too bad, we have no evidence, he's always been a big dude - the man deserves a ton of credit for his improvement.

As far as the argument that Bautista isn't the MVP because he doesn't play on a winning team, I still say that's akin to arguing a single $20 bill in a wallet with 8 other $20's is more valuable than a $100 bill alone in a wallet.

Curtis Granderson is a very unique player. He has high strike outs, but he is taking his walks this year. He does not hit for average, but when he makes contact there is a very good chance it will be for extra bases. I agree with some who say that if a guy bats 4th on a good team he will naturally drive in a lot of runs, but nonetheless it's an outstanding feat to drive in 120+ like Granderson will this year. Don't forget his doubles, triples, and stolen bases also!

Not sure what the meaning of this post is. Imperfect stats like "R" and "RBI" can still be used to find extreme outliers? In no way does that validate the imperfect stats. OBP and SLG are still better metrics.

I know that we pound on stats on this blog--that is the point of it after all. But sometimes we need to take a breather. The point of this post is just to look at some basic numbers and note how rare a particular feat is, and what that usually means about the player. Nobody is trying to argue that RBI and R are good metrics for determining value.

I agree with what Jim and Johny Twisto have said. The implied (if not explicit) argument is that Granderson's feat of leading the majors in HRs and RBIs is tantamount to his being a slam-dunk for MVP. His year is impressive, and folks have won MVP awards with seasons that were nowhere near as good, but (as several prior posters have pointed out) there are a lot of other people who have an argument every bit as strong as Granderson's.

Guy on 1st would be worth .75, guy on 2nd .5, guy on 3rd, .25, HR = 1
over the total opportunities (I suppose it could be done both with and without HRs).

I found the simple RBI% stat (http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/RBIPCT.py), and Granderson was 17th of those with over 200 PAs, not overly impressive. However, I'm curious if that number would be improved it the stat was weighted, since he's gotten 95 ABs in the first inning, and because he hits 2nd most often, he would have been most likely to just have a guy on 1st base, and much more limited in RBI Opportunity.

I was surprised to see Sosa up twice, I'm sure he got his share of walks and had a good BA despite high K totals, but wasn't known for speed in his power days, nor do I even remember much about who batted behind him.

You make an interesting point about Verlander. I know the prevailing wisdom is that pitchers shouldn't be MVPs, but look at the rest of the Tiger rotation--it ain't pretty. Is there anyway the Tigers win that division without Verlander? I think the answer is clearly "no", and I think that gives him a hell of an MVP argument.

@36 I agree. I believe they are 21-8 when he starts. An also ran when he
doesn't. Of course in that division they could still win, but this shouldn't
be a factor in the debate. It's not his fault he plays in a week division.

I still like Grandy. Although, I could see Verlander finishing second as
the Sox split the vote.

Grandy's numbers are going to be crazy when the season is over. He will
probably be at 45+ homers, 140+ runs and 125+ RBI's.

Following Grandy in the batting order...Teixeira and Cano. Following Jose...Adam Lind and Edwin Encarnacion. Who would you walk intentionally? BTW...Maris in '61 had 0 IBBs. It's all about the batting order.

It's always interesting when one of those comments ends up being from Timmy P

I think it would be more interesting if a Timmian comment turned out not to be by him. The random statements of a demented mind will always be easy to identify.

I think sportswriters are terrified that Bautista is juicing or something, and are worried about getting fooled again by glorifying him.

I don't know. I think it's much more because the Jays are in 4th, while there are plenty of attractive candidates on the "contending" teams. (Of course, I can't explain the disconnect that occurred during the All-Star Game. At that time, Bautista's numbers were on a legendary, historic pace, as opposed to now being merely excellent. Yet Buck and McCarver said Adrian Gonzalez was "unquestionably" the AL MVP to that point. On the other hand, they then promoted Matt Kemp as the NL MVP, even though the Dodgers were also in 4th, and worse than the Jays. So who knows....)

Is there some place to find a weighted "RBI %" stat.

I think the best way to account for RBI based on actual opportunities would be to look at how many PA the player has had in each of the 24 base/out situations, and determine how many RBI the average player would have given those same opportunities. I created a table like this during the Ryan Howard Wars of a couple weeks back. At that time, Granderson was +33 RBI over an average player, and A-Gon and Howard were both about +25.

there is only one player in the AL that is in the top 10 in singles, doubles, and triples. That is Mike Young for the Rangers.

I know when I start filling out my MVP ballot, the first thing I look for is the league leaders in singles. Second is sac flies.

@ 11 ( I know I'm late) I'm not saying an article about this feat shouldn't be on this site. I look forward to players breaking records or creating new ones. I have a gripe (and it has been addressed plenty in the comments already) when certain records or feats are used to determine or make a case for an MVP when the underlying stats aren't very meaningful. And, yes, the title plainly states "or 'Why Curtis Granderson is the AL MVP'", implying that the feat he is set to accomplish (i.e. leading both leagues in runs scored and RBIs) is reason he is the AL MVP. A site like this, which has the tools and ability to evaluate players based on their controllable skills, while stripping out (as best we can) luck and context shouldn't be promoting something like that. It's an outdated thought process that a site like baseball-reference shouldn't propagate.

If you're all going to ignore the guy with far and away the best stats in the majors, why bother using stats in your arguments at all? The instant you start trying to back up your case by citing production, you have to go with Bautista. You just have to.

Derek Jeter is the leader of the likely AL East champion, and he got his 3000th hit this year, so why not him? Or if you think Boston's going to pull it out, how about Ortiz? He may be 7th on his own team in WAR, but he's Big Papi, and we've already established that WAR ≠ value. Josh Hamilton may have had a disappointing season with a lot of missed games, but the Rangers are leading the division and he handled that fan tragedy really well.

Sorry Grandy, I've got to go with Hamilton. His story tugs at my heartstrings, and isn't that what baseball (and America) is really about?

I agree that R and RBI are not great metrics for measuring player performance. Rather, I think a better measure for "production" is OPS with RISP. Yes, Granderson Ks too much, but after watching him play for a few seasons, I think he approaches the plate differently when there's a chance to put a run or two on the board. Can someone get me this stat and tell me where the Grandy Man compares to other players. Since it controls for "opportunities," I wonder where a good hitter on a mediocre team (e.g., Bautista) stands on such a list.

To be honest, as a Yankees fan with Granderson on my fantasy team, I've been following him quite closely for quite a while and was just waiting to see an article on this exact topic. He's always been on pace to score a ton of runs - I remember that earlier in the season I calculated him as being on pace for 146 runs. That's an incredible number considering how low offense has been throughout the league this season. Then he took the lead in RBI and suddenly MVP articles began popping up about him everywhere - and I only pay attention to B-R and Fangraphs. Perhaps sabermetric writers are subconsciously influenced by RBI more than they think they are.

Luckily for Granderson (and for my fantasy team), the Yankees' offense hasn't been low by any stretch of the imagination this season, and deserves a good deal of the credit for Granderson's fantastic counting stats. The Yankee lineup is strong from top to bottom, with the exception of whoever's playing catcher (and Posada if he's playing). When you put up an OPS+ in the neighborhood of 150 on the highest scoring team in the league you're bound to rack up some solid stats.

Though the fact that he leads the MLB in runs and RBI (and is tied for the lead in homers) speaks to how good Granderson's season has been and how drastically he has improved since he retooled his swing and began crushing lefties, he simply hasn't been the most valuable player this season. Bautista has been even more incredible than Granderson and is posting an OBP (the most important offensive stat) in the neighborhood of Bonds, Ruth, and Williams.

Though it's nice to see Granderson get recognized for his accomplishments this season, the most interesting thing he's done this year for me is simply obliterate all competition in runs scored. He's currently ahead of the second place run-scorer, Jacoby Ellsbury, by 28 runs (123 to 95). We're talking a 30+ differential between him and the next place guy. Is that a record? I've been thinking it has to be for a while now but I'll have to look into it.

Ellsbury 1.007 in 117 at bats for 82 RBIs.
Bautista .916 in 144 at bats for 85 RBIs.
Gonzalez .890 in 189 at bats for 103 RBIs.
Grandy .859 in 165 at bats for 107 RBIs.
Pedroia .855 in 156 at bats for 71 RBIs.

Even that isn't perfect though, because the Sox and Yankees have protection while nobody in their right mind pitches to Bautista with men on. Their walk totals with RISP.

Bautista 49
Pedroia 28
Gonzalez 25
Granderson 15
Ellsbury 12.

Between the number of opportunities and the quality of the opportunities, I don't think there's any way for Jose Bautista to lead the AL in RBIs. He could have an OPS of 1.500 and he still wouldn't. If you don't believe that, remember this- Barry Bonds only led the NL in RBIs once, in 1993. In 2004, probably the greatest season any professional athlete has had in my lifetime, he placed 17th.

Tom Brady said it best:
“My feeling, as always, is the most valuable player award in a team sport, to me that doesn’t make a lot of sense. I can understand you have a most valuable golfer or something like that... "

The sportswriters will have their little vote, and wouldn't it be great if nobody cared?

I'd like to see it go to the guy who by far leads the league in both OBP and SLG, who also has unbelievable numbers in late and close situations and also has the highest WAR in the majors.

People arguing contention being a factor is very strange to me. There is no one player in the league responsible for his team being in playoff contention. Some players will be responsible for 0 wins, some for 5 wins, etc. Nobody is even close to responsible for all 90 wins. Contention has nothing to do with who the most valuable player is.

Right - I think Eric W's point is that being worth five wins as an individual player shouldn't be considered any different whether you're on a 98 win team or a 68 win team. Which, in general, I agree with.

@Andy: 5 wins is of course the difference often between making the playoffs or not. My point is that you can't just say "this guy's the reason they're here" because 5 wins is just a drop in the bucket for the entire team's season. It'd be the same as saying that a guy who statistically is responsible for one WAR should be considered because his team won the wild card by half a game. The logic just makes no sense to me.

On another baseball website I frequent, we just had a discussion about how Granderson might lead his league (or tie for it) in homers and triples, a feat that hasn't been accomplished since Jim Rice 1978.

I had no idea that Jim Rice in Fenway Park could lead the league in triples, but he hit 15 two seasons in a row.

Thanks, Raphy. I missed that previous post regarding Granderson (I was on vacation that week). I'm sure the conversation I remember was on another site, but it's nice to see that it didn't slip past the b-ref guys!

Chill out men. It's not like the MVP award actually means anything. If you insist..argue about the 1942 MVP Joe Gordon. T.Williams leads the league in every major statistic..and yet is not worthy. My bad..Gordon did lead the league in SO's.

@41 Twisto: Brilliant minds often appear demented to the dull and uninspired. And! I didn't say anything about Mike Young winning the MVP because he is in the top 10 in singles, doubles, and triples. I mearly mentioned he is a unique player, as is the Gradyman. I love the Grandyman!

As of this moment, Granderson has the fourth best ever runs scored/times on base ratio for all seasons (1901-) where a player scored at least as many runs as he has to date (123) with only Tommy Leach in nineteen-nine, Bucketfoot Szymanski in '30, and Joe D in '36 turning in better figures. If (when) Granderson scores 10 more runs, only Simmons will have him beat, and rightfully so as he is the only one higher than 60%. Ah yes, but this is only if Curtis can maintain his current 55.9% pace.